![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Common Ground?
Jan. 31st, 2008 | 09:47 am
I've written on this before. It's the question of common ground. That is, can we who are pro-life "work together" with those who are pro-choice? I think the answer to that question ultimately is a "Yes", but my follow-up question would be "And what would that accomplish?"
I was thrown back into this train-of-thought from a post that JivinJ linked to, which involved Steve Wagner and Jill Stanek's seemingly opposing view on the subject. (I've met both in person.)
Steve Wagner made the following comment:
Jill responded in her recent World Net Daily column:
Now, I don't think that Jill was making an emphatic statement here; only really expressing a concern that I share with her. There are a lot of pro-lifers who think that we actually have something in common with pro-choicers. Perhaps we do, but this is no time to discuss our common love of banana bread—this is baby-killing we are talking about.
While Steve is right in finding common ground in reaching out to your everyday pro-choicer (on a college campus, for example), I don't think that we will reach the Nancy Keenans of the world with this approach, as he seems to promote by his comments. Whenever I work on a college campus, I almost always find common ground, because these are normal people, not people on the NARAL payroll. They are pro-choice, as opposed to Pro-Choice. The NARAL ladies can't bring themselves to stop calling us "anti-choice" for 5 seconds and think that we are a bunch of white men, even though they've been snarking the movement for 35 years now which is mostly women: believe me, they don't have the slightest bit of interest in what we have to say.
One of the lessons I've learned from a political standpoint is that it's never good to compromise with your enemy. Steve apparently grasps this point, and has no intention of compromising. But you have to say, "What's the point then?" The pro-choicers won't even give us their consideration for something as pathetic as parental notification without making us sign papers allowing free contraception for all females, no matter their age/background. And that's usually a turn-off for most pro-lifers because of our fundamental differences in our views of sex and procreation.
The movements will never be able to work together. Even if abortion were to be made illegal, and the Pro-Choice Prophesy of billions of women sticking coat hangers into their bodies mindlessly actually becomes true, our approaches to stop them from doing so would be different: pro-lifers would love the women, pro-choicers would get them their blessed abortions.
I was thrown back into this train-of-thought from a post that JivinJ linked to, which involved Steve Wagner and Jill Stanek's seemingly opposing view on the subject. (I've met both in person.)
Steve Wagner made the following comment:
It appears from their article that Kissling and Michelman are calling for an internal discussion of the effective pro-life challenges they've highlighted, but I would encourage them to go further. Talk to pro-life advocates about them. We're ready to listen, understand and build common ground first in order to really hear your concerns and perspective.
Jill responded in her recent World Net Daily column:
I am concerned that some on our side see Michelman and Kissling's piece as some sort of mea culpa, and pro-lifers should stand ready to hold hands with them singing "Kumbaya....I for one will never try to "build common ground" with the abortion industry. There is no common ground. The culture of death is the sworn enemy of the culture of life. This is a war, a clash of civilizations.
Now, I don't think that Jill was making an emphatic statement here; only really expressing a concern that I share with her. There are a lot of pro-lifers who think that we actually have something in common with pro-choicers. Perhaps we do, but this is no time to discuss our common love of banana bread—this is baby-killing we are talking about.
While Steve is right in finding common ground in reaching out to your everyday pro-choicer (on a college campus, for example), I don't think that we will reach the Nancy Keenans of the world with this approach, as he seems to promote by his comments. Whenever I work on a college campus, I almost always find common ground, because these are normal people, not people on the NARAL payroll. They are pro-choice, as opposed to Pro-Choice. The NARAL ladies can't bring themselves to stop calling us "anti-choice" for 5 seconds and think that we are a bunch of white men, even though they've been snarking the movement for 35 years now which is mostly women: believe me, they don't have the slightest bit of interest in what we have to say.
One of the lessons I've learned from a political standpoint is that it's never good to compromise with your enemy. Steve apparently grasps this point, and has no intention of compromising. But you have to say, "What's the point then?" The pro-choicers won't even give us their consideration for something as pathetic as parental notification without making us sign papers allowing free contraception for all females, no matter their age/background. And that's usually a turn-off for most pro-lifers because of our fundamental differences in our views of sex and procreation.
The movements will never be able to work together. Even if abortion were to be made illegal, and the Pro-Choice Prophesy of billions of women sticking coat hangers into their bodies mindlessly actually becomes true, our approaches to stop them from doing so would be different: pro-lifers would love the women, pro-choicers would get them their blessed abortions.